C4

People For Raises Awareness of the 'Romney Court' on Sotomayor Anniversary

PFAW Activists Rally Outside Romney Headquarters in Greentree, PA

Yesterday marked the 3rd anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor officially assuming her office as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. People for the American Way, in partnership with other progressive organizations including NARAL and the AFL-CIO, marked the occasion with activists on the ground in the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

At a campaign event in Colorado yesterday, President Obama underscored the importance of the election for its impact on the future of the court.

Today is the three-year anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor taking her seat on the Supreme Court. Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of Elena Kagan taking her seat on the Supreme Court. So let's be very clear -- the next President could tip the balance of the Court in a way that turns back the clock for women and families for decades to come. The choice between going backward and moving forward has never been so clear.

People For president Michael Keegan also laid out the stakes in the Huffington Post.

President Obama’s decisions to nominate Justices Kagan and Sotomayor prove his commitment to selecting qualified jurists and building a more representative and inclusive court that respects the Constitution and the rights of every American. Mitt Romney’s decision to turn to ultra-conservative judge Robert Bork for judicial counsel is a clear signal that he would only appoint far-right figures to the Supreme Court, judges that are even further to the right than Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.

It’s difficult to imagine a more conservative court than the one we have now, but that’s exactly what a Romney presidency would bring. With critical issues such as reproductive rights, voting rights, LGBT rights, campaign finance, and worker protections almost certain to come before the court next presidential term, stakes have never been higher.

For more on Mitt Romney’s dangerous vision for the Supreme Court, visit Romneycourt.com.

Yesterday, PFAW avtivists were featured on Ohio Public Radio:

 

ONN Tv,

and Ohio Capital Blog:

PFAW

NPR Looks Into David Barton's Bunk History, Refusal to Respond to Criticism

NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty profiled David Barton yesterday on “All Things Considered,” and in the devastating profile debunked many of the claims made by the right-wing pseudo-historian. Messiah College professor John Fea pointed out in the story that Barton, who will be a “a Texas representative to the GOP Platform Committee” at the upcoming Republican National Convention,” is a political activist who tries to present himself as a historian: “He’s in this for activism. He's in this for policy. He’s in this to make changes to our culture.”

In typical Barton fashion, he said any of his critics only “come after me” because “they disagree with me, and my religious faith, and my view on America.” Of course, Fea and other Barton critics quoted in the story, Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton and Rev. Ray McMillian of Cincinnati’s Oasis Church, are evangelical Christians. But since Barton can’t defend his own discredited “research,” he simply plays the victim and says he is being attacked for his patriotism and Christian beliefs.

Liberty University Law School dean Mat Staver, who made Barton required reading for his students, said he “would put him against any historian and would have no question who would win in a debate.”

Of course, Hagerty notes, Barton “has a policy of not debating anyone.”

Right Wing Watch readers will be familiar with many of Barton’s claims presented in the piece, including his assertion that the Constitution quotes the Bible “verbatim”:

“We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out,” Hagerty writes.

Or that the Founders “already had the entire debate on creation-evolution,” long before Charles Darwin was born:

NPR also covered Barton’s belief that he will influence the minds of America’s future leaders through his work shaping in the Texas textbooks, “it’s in the pipe coming down”:

That is also the dream of Mike Huckabee, who wished that “all Americans will be forced, forced — at gunpoint, no less — to listen to every David Barton message”:

Brian Camenker Blames Gay Marriage for Spike in Domestic Violence

MassResistance has updated its report, “What same-sex ‘marriage’ has done to Massachusetts,” and the group’s head Brian Camenker appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk to go down the list of all of the so-called negative impacts of marriage equality.

Anyone who thinks that same-sex "marriage" is a benign eccentricity which won't affect the average person should consider what it has done to Massachusetts since 2004. It's become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. The slippery slope is real. New radical demands never cease. What has happened in the last several years is truly frightening.

Camenker rehashed the typical claims about how gay rights is leading to anti-Christian persecution, but also told host Vice Eliason that marriage equality is responsible for an uptick in the state’s domestic violence cases. Experts say that domestic violence has increased nationwide, likely connected to economic stress, Massachusetts included.

But Camenker says gay couples are responsible for the increase, arguing that “the rates of domestic violence among homosexual couples is many, many times that of heterosexual couples,” which he alleges is a manifestation of “the dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships.”

However, Jane Doe Inc. The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence writes, “Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are abused at approximately the same levels as heterosexual couples, but the abuse may be exacerbated by social isolation caused by societal oppression and discrimination.” The Center for American Progress also notes that “studies have found that domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples at comparable rates to straight couples,” not “many, many times that of heterosexual couples” as Camenker claims.

Eliason: Domestic violence, what’s happening in that field dealing with this new lifestyle?

Camenker: Well it’s well known that the rates of domestic violence among homosexual couples is many, many times that of heterosexual couples for all kinds of reasons. What’s happened in Massachusetts is that it has gotten so high that the legislature is having to budget more and more money, millions of dollars now, toward dealing with this problem up from a hundred thousand dollars just a few years go.



Camenker: It’s interesting at homosexual related events, you know gay pride events and all this stuff, they’re handing out all this gay domestic violence, partner violence literature, which is funded by the state. Apparently this has become a big problem; it’s even being passed out at high school gay clubs and all of this stuff. You know, the dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, which nobody wants to talk about, is being manifest more and more we’re seeing.

Schlafly: Obama is 'Trying to Wipe God out of Public Life'

Phyllis Schlafly continued her book tour yesterday by speaking with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, and accused Obama of “trying to wipe God out of our public life” and “wipe Christianity out of our public life.” She also suggested that Obama refuses to discuss his Christian faith, which is not true, and that his campaign is promoting a cult, “When he arrives his followers all stand around and chant ‘You’re the one we’ve been waiting for!’” Obama used the line “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” in a speech, citing a poem by an anti-Apartheid activist. It was not a campaign chant as Schlafly insists, but the falsehoods didn’t end there:

Schlafly: This is so ominous, this is so un-American, you know we’ve had several years Sandy and I’m sure you’ve reported on them where the ACLU and the atheists have been litigating to get rid of crosses, standing to honor our veterans and the Ten Commandments, pictures and monuments, and he just fits right into that, that’s why when he arrives his followers all stand around and chant ‘You’re the one we’ve been waiting for!’ He fits right into that. There are just so many ways that he’s just trying to wipe God out of our public life.

Rios: I’d like to give another illustration, because when I was on radio in Chicago we played this clip over and over again, I don’t have the clip this morning but he has said repeatedly, this always stunned me too Phyllis when he’s made speeches on allegedly to religious freedom or illusions to that topic, he has said repeatedly ‘we are a nation of’ and he gives a whole list, ‘Buddhists and Muslims and non-believers,’ and he always puts Muslims and non-believers right at the top of the list. He emphasizes always non-believers and Christians are just one of a series that he lists. The inference of course is that we are not a Christian nation, we are nation of Buddhists and Muslims and non-believers. That’s what he has said repeatedly and that was a huge red flag to me a very long time ago.

Schlafly: That’s right and over in the Middle East he repeated, ‘we are not a Christian nation.’ While he is trying to wipe Christianity out of our public life, he is giving a pass to the Muslims. He never says anything criticizing that. He says they are a peaceful nation, well I don’t know when I see those pictures of the World Trade towers I don’t think they’re very peaceful.

Of course, Obama was not the first president to say we are not a Christian nation. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli, which was crafted under George Washington and ratified by John Adams after it was approved unanimously by the Senate, reads: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,” [Muslims]. And Obama is also not the first President to condemn the argument, made by Schlafly, that radical terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are representative of all of Islam.

As for Rios’ claim that Obama downplays America’s Christian community and “always puts Muslims and non-believers right at the top of the list” in his speeches, that is simply not the case. She is referring to a 2007 speech where Obama said: “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” Muslim is the third religion mentioned, and nonbelievers are mentioned last. Plus, there is nothing wrong with what Obama said. Indeed, America is not just made up of Christians, but is a nation that includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, among various other people of faith. That is simply a statement of fact.

A Sotomayor or a Bork? The Decision Is Ours in November

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Three years ago today, the first Supreme Court confirmation battle of Barack Obama's presidency came to an end. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the oath of office on August 8, 2009, after enduring days of hearings at which she had been lambasted by Senate Republicans for such offenses as calling herself a "wise Latina" and acknowledging, like many male nominees before her, the shocking fact that her life experiences had shaped her perspective on the law.

In the three years since, I've been relieved to have Justice Sotomayor on the Court. I haven't agreed with all her decisions, but she has shown time and again that she understands how the Constitution protects our rights -- all of our rights. In 2010, she dissented to the Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, which twisted the law and Constitution to give corporations and the super wealthy dangerous influence over our elections. In 2011, she joined the four-justice minority that stood up for the rights of women Wal-Mart employees who were the victims of entrenched sex discrimination. This year, she was part of the narrow majority that upheld the Affordable Care Act, saving a clearly constitutional law that is already helping millions of Americans receive health care coverage.

Over and over again in the past years, the Supreme Court has split between two very different visions of the law and the Constitution. On one side, we have justices like Sotomayor who understand how the Constitution protects all of our rights in changing times. On the other side, we have right-wing justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who are determined to walk back American progress, turn their backs on the values enshrined in the Constitution, and ignore decades of our laws and history. On issues from voting rights to women's equality to environmental regulation, Americans' rights are being decided by the Supreme Court -- often by a single vote. Even the decision to uphold health care reform, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined Sotomayor and the three other moderates on the court, would not have been as close as it was if the Court had not moved steadily to the right.

November's presidential election will be a turning point for the Supreme Court. The next president will likely have the chance to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, setting the course of the Court for decades to come. President Obama has shown his priorities in his picks of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.

Mitt Romney has a very different vision for the Supreme Court. Campaigning in Puerto Rico earlier this year, Romney bashed Sotomayor -- who also happens to be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice and the Court's third woman ever. Instead, he says he'd pick more justices like Thomas, Alito and Antonin Scalia, the core of the right-wing bloc whose decisions are systematically rolling back Americans' hard-won rights. He used to say that he'd pick more Justices like Chief Justice Roberts, but changed his mind when Roberts ruled in favor of the health care reform plan similar to the one that Romney himself had helped pilot in Massachusetts.

So who would Romney pick for the Supreme Court? We've gotten a hint from his choice of former judge Robert Bork as his campaign's judicial advisor. Bork's brand of judicial extremism was so out of step with the mainstream that a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Bork objected to the part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that desegregated lunch counters; he defended state laws banning birth control and "sodomy"; he was unabashedly in favor of censorship; he once ruled that a corporation could order its female employees to be sterilized or be fired. And, though it might not seem possible, since his confirmation battle Bork has gotten even more extreme.

Any justice appointed by Romney would likely fall in the footsteps of Bork in undermining workers' rights, eliminating civil rights protections, siding with corporations over the rights of individuals, threatening women's reproductive freedom, and rolling back basic LGBT rights. President Obama, on the other hand, has promised to pick more justices who share the constitutional values of Justice Sotomayor.

Three years into the term of Justice Sotomayor, the Court hangs in the balance. It's important that we all know the stakes.

PFAW

President Obama: A Romney Court Could ‘Turn Back the Clock for Women and Families for Decades’

Speaking at a campaign event in Colorado today, President Obama laid out the crucial importance of the Supreme Court in November’s election:

Today is the three-year anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor taking her seat on the Supreme Court. Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of Elena Kagan taking her seat on the Supreme Court. So let's be very clear -- the next President could tip the balance of the Court in a way that turns back the clock for women and families for decades to come. The choice between going backward and moving forward has never been so clear.

The choice has never been so clear. In the Huffington Post today, People For president Michael Keegan lays out what’s at stake as we pick the man who will pick our next Supreme Court justices:

So who would Romney pick for the Supreme Court? We've gotten a hint from his choice of former judge Robert Bork as his campaign's judicial advisor. Bork's brand of judicial extremism was so out of step with the mainstream that a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Bork objected to the part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that desegregated lunch counters; he defended state laws banning birth control and "sodomy"; he was unabashedly in favor of censorship; he once ruled that a corporation could order its female employees to be sterilized or be fired. And, though it might not seem possible, since his confirmation battle Bork has gotten even more extreme.

Any justice appointed by Romney would likely fall in the footsteps of Bork in undermining workers' rights, eliminating civil rights protections, siding with corporations over the rights of individuals, threatening women's reproductive freedom, and rolling back basic LGBT rights. President Obama, on the other hand, has promised to pick more justices who share the constitutional values of Justice Sotomayor.

To learn more about Mitt Romney's dangerous vision for the Supreme Court, visit www.RomneyCourt.com.

 

PFAW

Aaron Klein Wonders if the Obama Administration will 'Collapse the US Capitalist System'

WorldNetDaily’s Aaron Klein appaeared on the AFA Today to promote his new book, Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed. Klein told Buster Wilson, who gladly pushes any conspiracy theory he finds in his email inbox, that members of the Obama administration and supporters may try to find “a way to collapse the US capitalist system and rebuild it into a socialist, Marxist utopia.” He tried to claim that he’s “not arguing that” in his book, but made it clear what he really thinks, noting that Obama will be embracing a “Marxist agenda.” Klein made a similar argument last year when he said that progressives are deliberately trying to create “financial chaos.”

Klein: You have a combination of corruption, you have a combination of ideological beliefs, and maybe even there is something out there, I can understand the argument, that let’s say if you want to look at it from a sinister perspective there are progressives out there both in the government and outside, you can argue, who we know they’re anti-capitalist. In fact Obama has actually given an anti-capitalist speech now or two. So maybe it could be argued, again I’m not arguing this, that this is a way to collapse the US capitalist system and rebuild it into a socialist, Marxist utopia. I’m not arguing that but I can tell you that a lot of Obama’s second term strategy in Full Me Twice comes straight from actually a Marxist agenda: we’re talking living wage, we’re talking paycheck fairness, and other things that originated with Marxism and that continue until now but these plans have of course been updated.

Wilson: A lot of Marxist philosophy, an end result of Marxist ideology that comes through the process spelled out by Saul Alinsky as well.

Andy McCarthy Describes Frank Gaffney's Claims as 'Nutty,' Then Denies Doing So

National Review columnist Andy McCarthy held a press conference today alongside Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy to defend the credibility of Michele Bachmann’s anti-Muslim witch hunt. However, McCarthy got tripped up after Nick Sementelli of Faith in Public Life asked him about Gaffney, who introduced McCarthy at the briefing, and his extremist views.

Gaffney is a birther, and in fact he dedicated an entire radio program to promote the birther conspiracy, and also thinks that President Obama may be a Muslim:

What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.

With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.

When Sementelli asked McCarthy about Gaffney’s claims, McCarthy went on to call such views “nutty” but then denied that he was referring to Gaffney.

Watch as McCarthy stutters through his answer and attempts to Sementelli’s questions:

Romney Met Thursday with Top Anti-Muslim Activist and Leading Backers of Bachmann Witch Hunt

On Friday, Mitt Romney declined to condemn Rep. Michele Bachmann’s witch hunt against Muslim Americans in the federal government, breaking with GOP leaders like Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner. He said that “those are not things that are part of my campaign.” If that’s the case, then why did Romney hold a closed-door meeting the evening before with high-profile supporters of Bachmann’s effort, including Jerry Boykin, a leading figure in the anti-Muslim movement?
 
As Politico reported, Romney met privately on Thursday evening in Denver with a select group of right-wing activists. Of the four participants named by Politico, three are outspoken proponents of Bachmann’s witch hunt. Gary Bauer and James Dobson wrote to John Boehner to praise Bachmann’s “good judgment, undeniable courage, and great patriotism” for “bravely demanding answers to matters essential to the safety of the American people and our Armed Forces.” Meanwhile, Boykin signed on to a separate letter expressing “strong support for congressional efforts to illuminate and address the danger posed by influence operations mounted by the Muslim Brotherhood against government agencies.” He also claimed that “Huma [Abedin] is not the only person who has penetrated our government” and wondered aloud if President Obama is a Muslim Brotherhood member.
 
Boykin, however, is more than just a cheerleader for Bachmann – he’s a leading force behind the effort to drive Muslim Americans out of public life. Boykin recently became the Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, but he’s best known as the lieutenant general who was rebuked by President Bush in 2003 and Defense Department investigators in 2004 for aggressively attacking Islam – in uniform – in the midst of two wars and an expansive anti-terrorism effort in the Middle East and South Asia.
 
Now retired, Boykin is on a mission to save the country from Sharia law and Islamic infiltration, which he sees lurking in every shadow and around every corner. His rhetoric is often bigoted, and he regularly traffics in wild-eyed conspiracy theories – like the one about Obama creating a Hitler-style militia to force Marxism on the American people or the one about international bankers plotting to form a Marxist, global government. (Don’t just take my word for it, see below for links to some of Boykin’s bizarre and disturbing pronouncements.)
 
Boykin, who last made headlines in January when he withdrew from speaking at West Point under pressure from cadets, faculty and outside groups, has argued that Muslims are not protected by the First Amendment and that there should be no mosques in America. In 2010, he joined forces with Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and other anti-Muslim activists to form the so-called Team B II. The real Team B was an analysis commissioned by the CIA in the 70s of the threats posed to the US by the Soviet Union. Team B II, co-led by Boykin, presented itself as performing a similar analysis of “an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah.”
 
The group issued a report in September 2010, “Shariah: The Threat to America,” which won praise from Bachmann and Rep. Trent Franks, who appeared with Gaffney at a press conference announcing the report. Among the key findings of the report was that the Muslim Brotherhood “has succeeded in penetrating our educational, legal and political systems, as well as top levels of government, intelligence, the media, and U.S. military, virtually paralyzing our ability to respond effectively.”
 
Nearly two years later, Bachmann, Franks and three colleagues fired off letters to federal inspectors general alleging infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood and requesting an investigation. The second paragraph of their letter, which fingered Huma Abedin, cited a series of web videos by the Center for Security Policy. The videos, available at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com, are narrated by Gaffney and lean heavily on Boykin’s Team B II report.
 
Remarkably, the efforts described above have spilled into Egyptian politics, with unfortunate consequences. As the New York Times reported in mid-July, many opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, citing statements by Bachmann, Boykin, and Gaffney falsely believe that “the Obama administration harbors a secret, pro-Islamist agenda” and may have even “plotted to install the Islamist party’s presidential candidate in office.” As a result, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s motorcade “was pelted with shoes and tomatoes by Egyptian protesters” motivated by conspiracy theories that “originated with American conservatives.” With Egypt on the brink, nonsense like this only serves to undermine American diplomacy, just as his comments years earlier in uniform undermined American efforts to win hearts and minds abroad and likely put soldiers at increased risk.
 
Does Romney really think Boykin is an appropriate person to meet with? Did the meeting participants discuss Bachmann’s efforts with him? This is serious stuff that Romney should have to address. It was easy enough for him to sidestep the Bachmann question earlier, but given his meeting the evening before, he needs to be asked anew about Bachmann and Boykin.
 
As promised, here are some highlights of Boykin's conspiracy-mongering and Muslim-bashing:
“We have incrementally moved towards Marxism and now I think it's at an accelerated pace. ...
 
One of the things that Hitler did was he established the Brownshirts. ... Well, in the lead-up to the election, during the campaigns, our current president said very openly, and you can find it on YouTube, if I am elected President, I will have a national civilian security force that is as large as and as powerful as the US military.
 
For what? Why do you need a national civilian security force?
 
Now most people say, well we haven't seen any signs of the administration doing that. Until you go back and read what nobody in Washington read, and that's the health care legislation that lays out a provision for the commissioning of officers to work directly for the President in time of a national emergency.
 
Now what would bring about a national emergency? An economic collapse, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster - we talked about all those things here - which would then allow for martial law. The foundation has been laid.”
“We need to recognize that Islam itself is not just a religion - it is a totalitarian way of life. It's a legal system, sharia law; it's a financial system; it's a moral code; it's a political system; it's a military system. It should not be protected under the First Amendment, particularly given that those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with sharia law.”
“No mosques in America. Islam is a totalitarian way of life; it’s not just a religion. … But Islam, we need to think Sharia, it is not just a religion it is a totalitarian way of life. A mosque is an embassy for Islam and they recognize only a global caliphate, not the sanctity or sovereignty of the United States.”

"If you look at Hitler, one of the most disgusting things I hear is for people to call Hitler the extreme Right. The absolute opposite was true. It was the National Socialist Party. He was an extraordinarily off the scale leftist. 

But many Jews in America, for example, can't identify with the Republican Party because they're called the party of the Right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth."

 

Wildmon: 'We are on the Road to Self-Destruction'

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon yesterday warned members that due to gay rights, the teaching of evolution, separation of church and state and the entertainment industry, America is “on the road to self-destruction.” “Try to raise any objection to this tide of immorality,” Wildmon warned in an email to members, “and you are quickly shouted down, ridiculed, called a prude, a hater, a religious nut, a censor or a fundamentalist…. We are now outnumbered.”

Is America worth trying to save? Save from what you might ask. Is America worth saving from self-destruction? Maybe that's a better question to ask.

Civilizations have risen and fallen through the ages. Countries have been birthed and countries have died. I believe the United States of America was birthed by the God of the Bible primarily for the purpose of advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ both here and around the world unlike any other country in history.



In modern day America, there is very little shame anymore. Most Americans have lost their fear of God. We are on the road to self-destruction.

Secularists mock the idea of God. Judges forbid even the acknowledgement of God in many public places. We teach our children they come from monkeys. Those who hold to the biblical definition of marriage are called hatemongers. The entertainment industry promotes sex without moral standards day after day, movie after movie, song after song - influencing our youth beyond measure. Try to raise any objection to this tide of immorality and you are quickly shouted down, ridiculed, called a prude, a hater, a religious nut, a censor or a fundamentalist.

What we are experiencing today in America is unbridled selfishness and licentiousness and the results are manifesting themselves in many terrible ways that will only get worse if things don't change.

For the Christian in America today there is only so much we can do. Only 43% of our fellow countrymen even go to church today. We are now outnumbered. But that which we can do, with God's help, we must do. We can pray to God that He send revival to America. We can continue to build strong Christian families. We can put our denominational barriers aside when there are shared values we can defend concerning issues that affect the moral health of our nation. We can share our faith. We can continue to hold high the standard of righteousness and we can vote for candidates who best reflect our values. There are no perfect candidates, but we are a nation of laws so we must elect the best available lawmakers to govern us and hold them accountable.

So to answer my own question, yes, America is worth trying to save. For our children, grandchildren and generations to come. We cannot give up. There is nowhere else to start over. There is nowhere else to sail to.

Todd Akin, Darling of the Religious Right, Wins Senate Primary

Missouri congressman Todd Akin eked out a win last night over  two rivals in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, adding to a list of Religious Right backed candidates winning competitive primaries, including Richard Mourdock of Indiana and Ted Cruz of Texas. Akin is more than just a dogmatic conservative-- he's a darling of the Religious Right, earning perfect 100% ratings from the Family Research Council, National Right to Life and Concerned Women for America . Akin has also worked Religious Right with activists Tony Perkins, Janet Porter, Rick Scarborough, Tom DeLay and David Barton, who even recorded an ad on his behalf.

Akin gained notoriety after he told Perkins on his radio show that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God,” a remark he refused to apologize for.

The congressman is also a virulent opponent of LGBT rights, pushing a ban on same-sex unions of any form in the military and as Think Progress noted, has co-sponsored nearly every piece of anti-gay legislation in the current House session. He thinks that “the liberal agenda has infiltrated our military” due to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and tried to overturn Washington, D.C.’s marriage equality law.

He took to the House Floor in 2006 with a warning that “anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived.”

In a documentary for Truth in Action Ministries, he claimed that the left “will snuff out the light of freedom” by “rewriting the history of America,” and warned that the health care reform law is “an unbiblical threat” that violated the Ten Commandments. Akin even believes that Medicare is unconstitutional, wants to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy and the Environmental Protect Agency, wants to impeach judges for “making decisions not based on the U.S. Constitution,” and likens student loan reform to “stage three cancer.”

Akin said that Thanksgiving should be remembered as a day to renounce “unbiblical” socialism and that the U.S. should use the Pilgrim society as a model because the Pilgrims used the Bible as a “blueprint” for economic, education and government policies.

He consistently pushes anti-choice legislation and even said that legal abortion is the reason for illegal immigration: “If you think about it we’ve aborted however many – 40 million – Americans through abortion. If those Americans had not been aborted, we might have more laborers here. Consequently, America is not reproducing itself in terms of our own internal repopulation of having a bunch of kids.”

Akin thanked God and Mike Huckabee for his primary success in his victory statement:

First, I want to give thanks to God our Creator who has blessed this campaign, heard your prayers, and answered them with victory. Through the months, we have seen frequent instances of His blessing and are reminded that with Him all things are possible!

I also wanted to thank Governor Mike Huckabee, who was with us from the start, stayed by our side, lifted us up in prayer, and tonight celebrates with us in victory. Governor Huckabee – I thank you, my family thanks you, and our volunteers thank you for your dedication to our campaign and devotion to saving the America we love.

From the depths of my heart I want to thank every single volunteer who served in our campaign and brought our winning message to the people of Missouri. Tonight one campaign ends…tomorrow another begins.

Cindy Jacobs: I Have the Power to Revive Dead Children

Televangelist and self-styled Apostle Cindy Jacobs possesses the supernatural power to initiate miracles. It isn’t too far-fetched, considering that her mentor and founder of the New Apostolic Reformation C. Peter Wagner has claimed that people like himself “can do the same or greater things than Jesus did.” On the August 6th edition of her show God Knows, the self-proclaimed “respected prophet” channeled her supernatural powers live on air to revive a dead child, claiming to have done so in the past as well. Jacobs has previously claimed that Satan “wants to steal God’s family and create tyranny” and that health care reform requires everyone to have a computer chip “put in their finger” in order to receive care.

Watch:

Jacobs: The bible says the same power is in us that raised Christ Jesus from the dead. I see someone; you literally had a child that just died. And I speak to the spirit of death in that child in the name of Jesus and I command you to lead that child. I speak to the spirit of infirmity that caused the child’s death and I say “Live in Jesus name! Live!’ And I see a child coughing, waking up, oh we saw that in Pakistan, we saw a little boy raised from the dead, just like that. God is on the move. God is on the move!

Is David Barton's Sloppy Scholarship Starting to Catch up With Him?

Pseudo-historian David Barton has been receiving significant criticism from conservative and evangelical historians who are aghast at his numerous and deliberate misrepresentations of American history, and yet Barton continues to claim that the only people who find trouble with his work are members of the liberal, secular, anti-American elite who just don’t like him exposing the “truth” about the founders. Barton said that he is like Jesus and chooses to ignore his critics, even though he usually attacks or sues them.

But as Barton’s star continues to rise in right-wing media and the Republican Party, his work has received even more scrutiny.

Today the evangelical publication WORLD Magazine ran a story about how a leading conservative Catholic became “increasingly troubled about Barton’s writings,” finding them to be full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.” The activist was none other than Jay Richards, who this year co-authored a conservative polemical with televangelist (and Barton-ally) James Robison and has also spoken alongside Glenn Beck, one of the top endorsers of Barton’s work. Richards even shared the stage with Barton at the Religious Right rally Beck and Robison co-hosted in Texas last week, Under God: Indivisible.

Richards said he spoke to ten “conservative Christian professors to assess Barton’s work,” and the responses were not good, as many criticized Barton for not only his much criticized book on Thomas Jefferson but also his sweeping claims about the founders at large.

Jay W. Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author with James Robison of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late, spoke alongside Barton at Christian conferences as recently as last month. Richards says in recent months he has grown increasingly troubled about Barton’s writings, so he asked 10 conservative Christian professors to assess Barton’s work.

Their response was negative. Some examples: Glenn Moots of Northwood University wrote that Barton in The Jefferson Lies is so eager to portray Jefferson as sympathetic to Christianity that he misses or omits obvious signs that Jefferson stood outside “orthodox, creedal, confessional Christianity.” A second professor, Glenn Sunshine of Central Connecticut State University, said that Barton’s characterization of Jefferson’s religious views is “unsupportable.” A third, Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College, evaluated Barton’s video America’s Godly Heritage and found many of its factual claims dubious, such as a statement that “52 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were ‘orthodox, evangelical Christians.’” Barton told me he found that number in M.E. Bradford’s A Worthy Company.



A full-scale, newly published critique of Barton is coming from Professors Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter of Grove City College, a largely conservative Christian school in Pennsylvania. Their book Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President (Salem Grove Press), argues that Barton “is guilty of taking statements and actions out of context and simplifying historical circumstances.” For example, they charge that Barton, in explaining why Jefferson did not free his slaves, “seriously misrepresents or misunderstands (or both) the legal environment related to slavery.”



Richards emphasizes that he and the scholars he consulted about Barton are politically conservative evangelicals or Catholics. They largely agree with Barton’s belief that Christian principles played a major role in America’s founding, but Richards argues that Barton’s books and videos are full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

Right-Wing Activists Warn Obama is working with Islamists to bring down Christianity, the West and America

Frank Gaffney last week hosted George Neumayr of the American Spectator, who co-authored the new book No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, to discuss what Gaffney calls the “Red-Green axis,” or the supposed alliance between progressives and radical Islamists. According to Gaffney, Obama “is the personification” of this liberal-Islamist partnership, “it comes together with him.” Neumayr came to a similar conclusion, telling Gaffney that Obama’s views on religion and abortion rights show that he has made Christianity his enemy and is consequently aiding Islam. “This unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West,” Neumayr said, while Gaffney added that it reveals a hostility to “American civilization more broadly.”

Neumayr: He picks on Christians because I guess they won’t fight back as strongly and because he thinks that Christianity is irrational, in fact he pretty much says that in “The Audacity of Hope,” he uses the tale of Abraham and Isaac to say that religion is basically an irrational thing and shouldn’t be a basis for our laws. The irony of his use of that story of course is that he himself as a state senator couldn’t bring himself to vote against infanticide; Abraham put down the knife, Obama’s friends at Planned Parenthood don’t put down the knife, they’ve killed untold numbers of unborn children under Obama and he doesn’t have a problem with that and he wants us to pay for it. So I think this alliance, this unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West.

Gaffney: And I would argue American civilization more broadly.

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Neumayr later added, was also an attack on Christianity as Obama may begin to have “Christian chaplains and privates” be “court martialed” during his second term.

Neumayr: We have a quote in here, actually comes from the Washington Times originally, but it’s actually a very revealing quote from Lt. General Thomas Bostick, who’s the army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, he told soldiers in Germany , he said, ‘unfortunately we have a minority of service members who are still racist and bigoted and we’ll never be able to get rid of all of them but these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program and if they can’t they need to get out.’

Gaffney: This is the homosexual agenda, specifically.

Neumayr: Yes, this is with respect to Obama’s position on gay rights. What we say in the book is that if he wins a second term we should expect resistant traditional Christian chaplains and privates to be court martialed; we will probably see that in the second term.

Gaffney: Or drawn and quartered as the case may be.

Jay Sekulow Continues to Push False Claim that Obama is Threatening Military Voters

Yesterday we noted that Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice is pushing a bogus charge, initially leveled by Mitt Romney’s campaign, that President Obama is trying to suppress the military vote in Ohio. The Obama campaign is challenging a new state law pushed by Republicans which limited early in-person voting to military personnel. The lawsuit’s goal is to expand early in-person voting to all eligible voters, including 900,000 veterans, not to limit military voting.

Even the Romney campaign’s general counsel admits that the lawsuit is not about excluding military voters but expanding the voter pool, as Washington Post’s “The Fact Checker” reports: “As for the memo from Katie Biber, who serves as general counsel to the Romney campaign, the plaintiffs’ argument of arbitrariness and unconstitutionality relates only to Ohio’s exclusion of civilians from the later voting deadline, not to the privilege granted to service members…. Again, the emphasis throughout the Democratic complaint is that Ohio should protect the Equal Protection Clause by ordering the state to extend the later deadline to civilian voters.”

But while Romney’s own general counsel cannot honestly defend the campaign’s preposterous claim, Jay Sekulow is standing by the debunked allegation.

Yesterday on Jay Sekulow Live, he berated Obama over the phony charge and said the ACLJ will file an amicus brief opposing the Obama campaign’s challenge. Sekulow even added to the already manufactured claim by saying that the Obama campaign wants to restrict the voting of “military men and women serving overseas,” even though the law only covers in-person early voting, and the challenge to it could in no way restrict the right of any service member to vote.

I want people to understand this, folks, the Obama administration has initiated this lawsuit, I should say to be particular the Obama re-election committee, it’s Obama for America, has filed suit against Ohio because Ohio is trying to accommodate military men and women serving overseas. I want you to think about that for a moment. The Obama administration or their re-election committee has filed a federal lawsuit to stop a law that would allow for an accommodation for men and women serving in the military serving overseas to vote. How does that make you feel? I hope you get outraged as I am on this and that’s why we’re not just talking about it because on this broadcast we don’t just talk about it we’re taking direct action but this is where you come in, I want all of the states to come to the aid of Ohio and you can do that with me so no matter where you are living, we want you on this brief.



You got the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States’ re-election committee, filing a lawsuit to stop an accommodation. I want people to understand this. The Commander in Chief of the United States has his re-election committee file a federal lawsuit against the state of Ohio and the state of Ohio with wide bipartisan Democratic and Republican support passed legislation accommodating military men and women so that they’re vote will actually count. And the Obama re-election committee says ‘well we think that is arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional.’

Dinesh D'Souza: Where are Obama's Ex-Girlfriends?

Dinesh D’Souza is out with a movie that is supposed to vet Obama, playing to the conservative activists’ laughable claims that Obama never received any serious scrutiny throughout his political career. While speaking to Alex McFarland, who was filling in for talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday, D’Souza said that Obama is “the most unvetted man, president, in modern American history,” because he hasn’t released his SAT or LSAT scores, college transcripts, the topic of thesis paper and a list of the names of his ex-girlfriends. As FactCheck.org notes, colleges are prohibited from sharing their students’ records with the public, and we actually do know the topic of Obama’s thesis paper (nuclear disarmament). There have even been extensive stories about his relationship with one of his ex-girlfriends. But until we know all of their names, D’Souza seems to think, we really know nothing about the President!

So there’s a real chord out—striking a real chord out here, and I think the reason is people are just hungry for new information about Obama and that this film does provide. Very often we hear critiques of Obama but not new facts about Obama. Remember there’s so much unknown about this guy, right? Let’s put aside the birther issue, I mean, what were Obama’s grades at Occidental College? Unknown. What was his SAT score for getting into college? Unknown. What was his GPA at Columbia? Unknown. What was his thesis about? Unknown. What was his law school test, his LSAT score, for getting into Harvard law school? Unknown. Who were his friends at Columbia? Unknown. He talks about having a bunch of girlfriends, where are they? What are their names? Unknown. So here’s a guy surrounded by black holes in his biography, he’s the most unvetted man, president, in modern American history.

ACLJ Promotes Bogus Claim that Obama is Suppressing Military Voters

President Obama’s campaign is suing Ohio after Republicans changed a voting law that ended early in-person voting, while leaving intact the right for service members to show up to the polls early. But Republicans, including Mitt Romney, say that the lawsuit meant to restore voting rights of most Ohioans would somehow hamper the right of soldiers to vote early, an obviously false and dishonest claim. Fox News has repeated the debunked talking points, and now Jay Sekulow, an early Romney backer, today emailed members of the American Center for Law and Justice stating that “Obama obstructs military voting rights.”

The Obama re-election campaign has filed a lawsuit to overturn a law that gives members of the military a few extra days to vote prior to Election Day.

Our heroes in the military sacrifice so much for us and face considerable risks that often make it more difficult for them to vote.

It's outrageous that the President's re-election campaign would oppose giving them extra consideration to exercise their right to vote.

They are serving to protect our right to vote; we need to stand up now to protect their voting rights. The ACLJ is filing an amicus brief, and we would like you to stand with us.

The ACLJ even started the “Committee to Defend Military Voting Rights” based on an entirely manufactured threat to military voting.

The Obama Re-election campaign has filed a lawsuit to overturn a law that gives members of the military a few extra days to vote early. Men and women in the military sacrifice dearly for our country and they deserve and have the lawful and constitutional right to additional consideration.

Stand with the U.S. military. The ACLJ will file an amicus brief backing the Ohio law - giving our military men and women an opportunity to cast their ballots in a constitutional manner. Add your name to our brief defending the voting rights of the U.S. military today.

This challenge by the Obama Re-election Campaign is not only unconstitutional, but it is also offensive to millions of Americans. Our military heroes deserve to have this lawful courtesy extended to them - not more roadblocks making it even more difficult for them to participate in the election.

Linda Harvey Laments End of Travel Ban on HIV-Positive People

In 2009, the Obama administration ended the travel ban on HIV-positive people, and last month Washington D.C. hosted the International AIDS Conference, the first time an American city held the event since 1990. Mission America’s Linda Harvey, however, was not amused. She attacked the Obama administration for lifting the ban since “reckless sexual behavior is not a deep American value” and warned that “the U.S.’s liberal homosexual culture” will attract HIV-positive immigrants,” leading to “an acceleration of the epidemic.”

Harvey: Overall there was an astonishing denial of reality. The conference was taking place in the U.S. for the first time in twenty-two years. Why? Because HIV-positive individuals had been banned from entering the U.S. but the Obama administration lifted that travel and immigration ban in 2009. So HHS Secretary Sebelius, ‘the HIV entry ban was a bad policy based on faulty science that ran contrary to America’s deepest values.’ She’s wrong, once again. Reckless sexual behavior is not a deep American value, except perhaps in Washington. The ban was a response to reality and the known attraction of some would-be immigrants to the U.S.’s liberal homosexual culture in certain cities. Opening our ports to HIV-positive people just invites an acceleration of the epidemic.

Eagle Forum Worries Common Core Standards Could Bolster the 'Promotion of Homosexuality'

Eagle Forum’s Rachel Motte last weak appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk with Jim Schneider to discuss her organization’s opposition to common core standards, which are meant to “define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K-12 education careers.” Advocates deny that by aligning divergent state standards they will create a nationalized curriculum since “local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met,” but Motte maintained that the effort will be used as a backdoor for the establishment of a uniform, countrywide curriculum.

Schneider even warned that the common core standards could advance “the promotion of homosexuality” in schools, along with “other areas that would violate so many parents’ system of moral beliefs.” Motte agreed and said that it was all part of a plan to “change a culture” by getting “a hold of its children and you train them in exactly the wrong things, you teach them to love the wrong things.” “The people who will be controlling what your children learn are not the people who you would want your children to emulate,” Motte warned.

Schneider: When we’re talking about advancing in algebra or going through some of the sciences, biology and so on, talking about needing to attain higher levels is one thing but what we have found is that what is coming through the educational system today is going into so many other areas. I’m talking about that which is sometimes called the social areas or the moral areas, such as the human growth and development type things, such as the promotion of homosexuality and don’t say a word in opposition to those who want to follow in same-sex relationships and so on that we have to be so politically correct. I just fear that this kind of a nationalized curriculum is going to beyond just some of these hardcore academic issues into all these other areas that would violate so many parents’ system of moral beliefs.

Motte: Oh absolutely, that is how you change a culture for the worse, you get a hold of its children and you train them in exactly the wrong things, you teach them to love the wrong things. That’s what’s happening, it’s heartbreaking, but that is exactly what’s happening. You see how the culture has shifted in the past decade; well expect more of that, especially if this goes into effect. The people who will be controlling what your children learn are not the people who you would want your children to emulate.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious